Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

movebuddha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#21

Post by daenz »

ahelwer wrote: post #16
daenz wrote: post #14

I'm considering relocating from Seattle purely based on the fact that we can make WFH commonplace. Why pay insane rents to physically be in a location I can work remotely?

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

I lived in Chicago and paid $1500/mo for a 1500 sq/ft loft in River North, AC, dishwasher, in-unit laundry. The rents here are insane compared to other places.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#24

Post by __s »

acchow wrote: post #5
nugget wrote: post #2

I saw a statistic that 0.25% of NYC’s population has already died from Coronavirus (15k/6m). It seems worse there due to the density, and similarly dense cities like London are in the same boat.

citation please?

Look up a death toll

Look up population

Derive percentage

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+population says 8.4M

https://www.google.com/search?q=corona+death+toll+nyc says 10k

https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/nyc-coronavirus-deaths-near-13... says 13k

This gives 0.1%. The OP's numbers are based on 6M population & 15k deaths. I believe their trying to cite total deaths, not just covid-19 related. Their NYC region also seems to be more localized

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#25

Post by justincormack »

ahelwer wrote: post #16
daenz wrote: post #14

I'm considering relocating from Seattle purely based on the fact that we can make WFH commonplace. Why pay insane rents to physically be in a location I can work remotely?

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

Not sure people will want to live in a one bedroom if they start working from home even some of the time, you want space.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#26

Post by mantas »

ahelwer wrote: post #16
daenz wrote: post #14

I'm considering relocating from Seattle purely based on the fact that we can make WFH commonplace. Why pay insane rents to physically be in a location I can work remotely?

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

Define "great". A lot of people don't give a fuck about blings aside from cushy job. So far blings are what make up for the sad reality of city living. But if cushy jobs are not restricted to few areas anymore... Why bother.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#27

Post by kryogen1c »

nkozyra wrote: post #17
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to point out that about 155k people die in NY every year. About 1% of Americans die each year, so there is a crucial distinction between dying with a disease, and dying of a disease. Risk is not additive. The median age for covid deaths is well into the late 70s, which means that there is a high risk of death in the same period anyway would the person not have been infected with covid. The overall mortality…

This seems to misrepresent overall mortality with cause-specific mortality. If I'm struck by a car with stage 4 cancer, the car accident killed me, regardless of my outlook. If that car accident happens to be highly contagious, well then the cause is even more important. > Risk is not additive. It isn't always, but it very often is and it is in this case.

> If I'm struck by a car with stage 4 cancer, the car accident killed me, regardless of my outlook.

this is not obviously true. the analogy is good, but you didn't go into enough detail.

if someone with terminal cancer is hit by a car, makes it to a hospital, and dies some weeks later, why did they die? both things likely played a role; how do you report this statistic?

i stopped worrying about the virus and started worrying about the economy and its politics weeks ago.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#28

Post by Barrin92 »

nkozyra wrote: post #17
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to point out that about 155k people die in NY every year. About 1% of Americans die each year, so there is a crucial distinction between dying with a disease, and dying of a disease. Risk is not additive. The median age for covid deaths is well into the late 70s, which means that there is a high risk of death in the same period anyway would the person not have been infected with covid. The overall mortality…

This seems to misrepresent overall mortality with cause-specific mortality. If I'm struck by a car with stage 4 cancer, the car accident killed me, regardless of my outlook. If that car accident happens to be highly contagious, well then the cause is even more important. > Risk is not additive. It isn't always, but it very often is and it is in this case.

if someone dies in a traffic death while having stage four cancer then this would indeed not change year on year mortality (assuming the person dies of cancer).

This is an awful example though because the victim profile of car deaths is generally middle aged adults, who would not have died otherwise. If your average car driver was a stage four cancer patient traffic safety would indeed be less of an issue relatively speaking.

The risk profile of covid patients skews so heavily towards old age and existing preconditions that it is actually not trivial at all. It's immensely important to look at death rates in the context of general mortality, not a vacuum.

It may very well be the case that covid 'crams' the deaths of people who would have died anyway into a short timeframe and there'll be singificantly lower flu mortality and so on later this year.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#29

Post by kolikotime »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20

I think the aftermath of coronavirus is really going to be larger that most people are anticipating when it comes to work and migration patterns: 1. In the past 25 years there has been a huge re-migration back to cores of major cities. I think that is going to stop. 2. Suburbs and exurbs I think will become way more popular. The normal limiting factor on those locations is the commute, but I think so many more compan…

I think your third point is mostly strong. I see most companies going to partial remote but staying in their current locations. For growth to 2nd/3rd tier cities to dominate we’d need to see stronger job growth there than in major metros, or for near universal remote work. Also with this huge recession most people will be more hesitant to move without a secured job. I think your assertion is correct.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#30

Post by saddestcatever »

Animats wrote: post #22

Browsing of real estate ads probably isn't a strong indicator. It's something people can do while home and frustrated, but it's not action.

...or at least provide a better constant? Due to WFH, free time, and general discontent I'm sure site traffic for any location is up. How does the increase in suburb searches compare to the (likely) increase in urban searches?
Post reply on HN